HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER.-This revision petition is directed u/s 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 1.8.1987 of the Addl. Commissioner (Cons), Multan Division whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondents.
2. The brief history of the case is that the Consolidation Scheme of village Basti Saidan, Tehsil Shujabad, District Multan was confirmed u/s 10(3) of the Ordinance ibid on 22.6.1978 by the Consolidation Officer. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner put in an application to the Assistant Commissioner, Shujabad alleging therein that he was allocated khasra No. 22/4/2 measuring 5 kanals 8 marlas during consolidation operations and was given Parcha Zamindaran accordingly.
This khasra number was previously held by the petitioner. The Patwari (Cons) at the time of preparation of Missal Haqiat did not incorporate khasra No. 22/4/2 against his name and he wrongly and fraudulently mentioned khasra No. 31/4/2. The Collector (Cons), to whom this application appears to have been sent in due course came to the conclusion that the contention of the petitioner was borne out from the record and vide his order dated 15.11.1984 allowed the correction of the record. This order was assailed in appeal by the respondents in the court of the Addl: Commissioner (Cons) Multan Division who vide his impugned it holding that khasra No. 22/4/2 (Shumali 5K- 8M) was given to the respondents at scheme No. 6. Over which there was no over writing etc. As far as the scheme No. 18 of Sarwar Shah petitioner was concerned the entry in column No. 5 was not free from doubt. There was a cutting and over writing as well. In Column No. 10 entry was 22/4/1 (5K-8M) but in column No. 5 it was entered as Khasra No. 31/4/1. Both these were contradictory. Hence this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that Khasra No. 22/4/2 was owned and possessed pre-consolidation in exclusive khata by the petitioner and was given to him during the consolidation operations as could be seen from Parcha Zamindaran but' later the respondents had it allotted to them clandestinely. Khasra No. 31/4/2 was inferior land and the petitioner had been put to big loss by the machination of the consolidation authorities. When the petitioner came to know of it he preferred an application for the correction of the record before the Addl: Deputy Commissioner/Collector (Cons) and Khasra No. 22/4/2 was restored to him as per his entitlement.
However, on appeal by the respondents' khasra No. 22/4/2 was again taken away from the petitioner. The petitioner was condemned unheard by the Addl; Commissioner (Cons) and no attempt was made to secure his presence. The ex-parte impugned order may, therefore, be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that khasra No. 22/4/2 was surrounded by the respondents land all around. The petitioner had residential house in khasra No. 31/5 and therefore Khasra No. 31/4/2, which was adjacent thereto had been rightly given to him. The respondents had been allotted Khasra No. 22/4/2 in their scheme No. 6/6. All their holding was in one compact block and if this number was to be given to the petitioner then, apart from its location in the middle of their holding, the number of plots of both the parties would be increased. It was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record as well as the sketch map and the record produced by the Consolidation Patwari. Khasra No. 22/4/2 measuring 5K-8M was owned and possessed by the petitioner preconsolidation in his exclusive khewat No. 194. He was also exclusive owner of khewat No. 10 and 28 and was a co-owner in khewat No. 11 with the respondents.
Khasra No. 22/4/2 is situated in the centre of scheme No. 6 and 7 of the respondents. The petitioner has been given land in three plots one of which is around to his house in khasra No. 31/5/2 and Khasra No. 31/4/2 is adjacent thereto. The perusal of the record further revealed that khasra No. 22/4/2 was given to Sarwar Shah at Scheme No. 119/96 but also to Manzoor Bibi at Scheme No. 6/6.
In this regard the observation of the Additional Commissioner (Cons) regarding entries in various columns of the respective scheme are correct to large extent except that Khasra No. 22/4/2 (5K- 8M) has inadvertently been double- allotted. There is no doubt about column No. 10 of both the schemes in which the antries are clear. The confirmation order in column No. 10 takes priority over all other columns. However, since 22/4/2 was situated in the heart of respondents' plot it should have been given to them. Similarly Khasra No. 31/4/2 which is adjacent to petitioner's third plot in Square No. 31 has also been correctly given to him. The restoration of Khasra No. 22/4/2 to the petitioner would break up the compact block of the respondents apart from increasing the number of plots of both the parties. I, therefore, do not se any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the marked difference in quality of the soil of both the fields in dispute. According to Fehrist Nambran Khasra No. 22/4/2 was Chahi Nehri whereas Khasra No. 31/4/2 was Banjar Qadeem. However, the classification of both is class-II which does not appear to be correct. There is a lot of difference in the value and productive capacity of Banjar arid Chahi Nehri lands. The point of adequate compensation to the petitioner for depriving him of his more valuable land does not have received attention at any stage. A compensation of Rs. 2000/- is, therefore, awarded to the petitioner which shall be paid to him by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of this order. In case of non- compliance, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this forum again. The revision is otherwise dismissed as far as restoration of khasra No. 22/4/2 to the petitioner is concerned.